Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Woodworth is very keen on the subject, and I appreciate that enthusiasm. He has cut the witness off in his response twice, and now he's saying the witness has to say yes or no as an answer.

I wish, Mr. Chair, that you would encourage the witness to answer his question fully and encourage Mr. Woodworth to let the witness do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy, as I have said before, I respect the independence of each member of this committee. I'm going to respect the right of each member to ask the questions as they see fit. I have extended that courtesy on both sides of this table. I will remain consistent in doing so.

The only time I will intervene is if in fact the witness and the questioner are yelling over each other so that they become unintelligible. At that point, I will intervene.

Otherwise, I'm going to allow each of our members to carry on their examination of witnesses as they see fit.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I just comment on that point of order before I resume?

I appreciate Mr. Murphy's intervention. I'll certainly comply with requirements of courtesy, but I want to say that my comment to the witness about not just saying “mm-hmm” is, I suppose, a lawyer's habit, because assuming that there's a transcript kept, the “mm-hmm” doesn't really come out very well.

I was simply, as courteously as I could, attempting to ask the witness to articulate a yes or no, and I didn't mean any discourtesy by it.

May I resume? Thank you.

With respect to Mr. Clifford Olson, the only issue is whether the parole ineligibility is decided by the judge or by the parole board, at least in connection with this legislation. Is that correct?

[Joseph Di Luca]

That's correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

At least in the case of Clifford Olson, we might now with hindsight say that perhaps it might have been appropriate for the judge to do that pre-screening. Would you agree?

[Joseph Di Luca]

No, I wouldn't, and the only reason I wouldn't agree is that you're asking a judge to prospectively guess where a person is going to be 50 years from now. It's an impossible position, for a judge looking at it, to say that up until 49 years from now this person is just not safe to be released, but at the 50-year mark he should be free to apply for parole.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Let me just say that, at least in the case of Clifford Olson, I would have to somewhat strongly disagree with you, in that I think it would have been apparent to a judge, in the case of a serial killer of that nature, and needn't have awaited the parole board.

But apart from that, I have another technical question that I wish to get to. I am no expert in parole hearings, I must confess, but my recall of the parole board is that they have policies and precedents that give guidance as to when parole will be granted or not. My recall of these is that they are keenly focused on public safety, but also remorse and rehabilitation.

I do not recall a policy or a precedent that would allow a parole board to deny parole when it was otherwise appropriate simply on the basis of the number of offences committed originally.

Are you saying there is such a policy? I thought I heard you say that a parole board would take that into account.

[Joseph Di Luca]

I don't think there's a formal policy that puts it in that sense, but if the parole board has to look at the degree of risk posed by an individual upon release, the fact that they have killed more than one person—perhaps in separate offences, perhaps in separate circumstances—certainly speaks to the inherent degree of risk of releasing that person.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

When you put it in terms of risk, that's quite right. But when you simply say that it's a stand-alone qualification, I don't think so.

How many submissions have you received from your members on Bill C-48?

[Joseph Di Luca]

I consult with my membership and my executive directly on issues. We have a legislation committee—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So what was the number?

[Joseph Di Luca]

There is no specific number.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Have you received any submissions from your members on Bill C-48?

[Joseph Di Luca]

From specific members, no, we haven't. But the way our committee is set up, the legislation committee is tasked with advancing the interests of the organization. The committee meets and debates and comes up with a position that's—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

How many people are on that committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We're at the end of our time.

[Joseph Di Luca]

I can answer that question. There are four people on that committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Thank you so much, Mr. Di Luca. Your testimony is helpful as we move forward with this bill.

We're going to suspend for two minutes, and then we'll come back to hear from Ms. O'Sullivan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I reconvene the meeting. We're continuing our study of Bill C-48.

It's my pleasure to welcome to our table again Ms. Suzanne O'Sullivan, who is our recently appointed Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Welcome back. You have 10 minutes to present, if you wish, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to come before you again today to discuss Bill C-48, which will provide judges the discretion to order consecutive rather than concurrent parole ineligibility.

I would like to start this afternoon by providing you with a very brief description of the work our office does. I would then like to provide members with my views and recommendations on this bill and how it impacts victims of crime in Canada.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate, which includes receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policymakers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively affect victims of crime.

In respect of Bill C-48, let me begin by stating our support for this bill and its intentions to provide the option, where appropriate, for judges to specify consecutive rather than concurrent parole ineligibility periods.

Bill C-48 addresses two specific concerns that victims have raised again and again: the need for accountability for each life taken, and the anxiety and emotional toll victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing.

As to accountability, the desire to see justice served for the loss of a loved one is common among victims, and I would argue understandable. In the case of a serial murderer, families of victims want to see that the loss of their loved one's life is considered and valued and that the offender is held responsible for each life he has taken.

When offenders are sentenced to life in our current system, they are not entitled to statutory release. If they are granted parole, they remain for the rest of their lives under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada. An offender's parole ineligibility is not automatically extended based on the number of victims he has killed. As a result, there is no clear deterrent or obvious punishment for taking six lives instead of one. This is clearly a source of frustration for some victims.

Not all victims agree that the longer incarceration is the best solution. But each victim I have spoken to agrees on one thing: they never want what happened to them to happen to anyone else. Bill C-48 provides the option at the judge's discretion to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods and to ensure that the victims and the public in general are protected. This discretion is an essential element of the bill. It provides the judge with the ability to make a decision based on individual circumstances and the best interests of all Canadians.

The second concern Bill C-48 addresses is the anxiety and difficulty victims can face in preparing for and attending a parole hearing. My appearance here today is timely. Just two days ago I attended, as an observer, the most recent parole hearing for serial killer, Clifford Olson. We are all familiar with the horrendous crimes that he has committed, and I have no wish to give him any more attention than he has already received. I do, however, want to speak to the emotional toll that parole hearings like this one can have on victims of crime.

I imagine you have all, to some extent, followed this issue in the media. Clearly, based on the offender's comments to the victims of crime, he has no remorse for what he has done or compassion for the loss his victims' families face. Regardless, he is currently entitled to apply for parole every two years, which means that the families of his victims have to face, again and again, their devastating loss.

I can tell you, after talking with Sharon Rosenfeldt, that these hearings can be very difficult. Some victims choose not to participate in parole hearings, but for those who do, preparing victim impact statements and sitting in the same room with the offender who stole the life of a son or daughter can make wounds fresh again. And the impact of that hearing is not limited to just the two days the parole board meets and makes its decision. It comes years in advance when victims know that an offender's parole ineligibility period is coming to an end. It comes months in advance when the victims are advised that the offender will be having a hearing and they need to prepare. And it continues after the hearing as families try to continue to heal. These hearings involve time, cost, and often travel for victims. For those who may be unwell or who have medical issues, this can be especially challenging.

Clearly, our justice system must be fair to all parties involved. I am not suggesting that offenders should never be eligible for parole, but in cases like these, Bill C-48 would give judges an additional tool to help ensure that victims are not subjected to this process without reason.

Finally, though I support this bill in its current form, I would also like to make two small recommendations for consideration. My understanding is that Bill C-48, for judges who choose not to impose consecutive ineligibility periods, states that they must provide the reasons for their decision orally or in writing. While I am aware that these decisions become a matter of public record and would leave this to the experts to discuss, I would recommend that this be amended to ensure that, first, victims are provided with the explicit right to this information should they desire it, and that, second, even in cases where a judge decides that an offender's parole ineligibility should be served consecutively, these reasons are also required to be given orally and in writing and the victims are provided the explicit right to this information should they desire it.

In conclusion, it is my view that Bill C-48 will have a positive impact on victims of crime and their families. Providing judges with the discretion to apply consecutive, rather than concurrent parole ineligibility will help ensure accountability for each life lost, and, where appropriate, will delay and in some cases prevent the trauma and devastation victims experience when faced with parole hearings.

Victims deserve a voice in the criminal justice system. I hope I have successfully helped in bringing that voice to you for consideration here today.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, you've got seven minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

I want to thank you for being here.

On your last point about the reasons, the intent of the bill, as I understand it, was for reasons to be given. How should that be different?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

One of the biggest issues and concerns and complaints we receive in the office is frustration from victims and their families, not only on their lack of rights, but on their access to information and their ability to get information. As I indicated, I understand these decisions are a matter of public record, and they're looking for the answers to the decision, whether the decision allows for the consecutive ineligibility for parole or not. They're looking for the answers to both why that decision was made and whether the consecutive ineligibility applies or it doesn't.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

For reasons and the decision?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Yes.